Comment Missing the point... (Score 1) 631
I am shocked that comming in this late, I found no comments on what I consider the MOST important reason ALL DRM IS OFFENSIVE:
In fact, that's the whole business model behind DRM...
You are not to prevent dick from giving a copy to Jane, so much as prevent Dick from inventing a new use before you do that makes Jane stop thinking of you as the only source.
For example, If you are a television media company, you want to do anything you can to prevent someone from inventing a TIVO before you can figure out how to secure a monopoly in that market and control the release and development of that tech - otherwise you may not have a place in the new market at all.
If they do invent a TIVO, you have to do everything in you power to sabotage that new market so that you can regain control with a new, and (apparently) better thing.
Ideally, as a monopoly, you are the only one legally allowed to bring new technologies to market.
I really can't believe this question was taken seriously, then no one just spit out the bottom line:
Obviously all DRM is distasteful, it's whole purpose is to restrain technological human development.
I understand that many people feel that overall human development is not as important as immediate artist prosperity - I disagree, but I understand that view.
But even if I agreed with that view, it makes DRM no less distasteful, just "neccessary".
Finally, I have seen the argument that it is impossible to maintain artistic creation in a society without our current lottery of potentially large financial reward; to that, I say Bu11shit.
I don't give a damn about my right to personally evaluate "Fair Use" compared to my right to develop new uses and technologies from emerging standards!
It's not just DRM, it's a neccessary evil of mature capitalist organizations - you can't create a standard without trying to sabotage technology development in that area.Restraint of development
In fact, that's the whole business model behind DRM...
You are not to prevent dick from giving a copy to Jane, so much as prevent Dick from inventing a new use before you do that makes Jane stop thinking of you as the only source.
For example, If you are a television media company, you want to do anything you can to prevent someone from inventing a TIVO before you can figure out how to secure a monopoly in that market and control the release and development of that tech - otherwise you may not have a place in the new market at all.
If they do invent a TIVO, you have to do everything in you power to sabotage that new market so that you can regain control with a new, and (apparently) better thing.
Ideally, as a monopoly, you are the only one legally allowed to bring new technologies to market.
I really can't believe this question was taken seriously, then no one just spit out the bottom line:
Obviously all DRM is distasteful, it's whole purpose is to restrain technological human development.
I understand that many people feel that overall human development is not as important as immediate artist prosperity - I disagree, but I understand that view.
But even if I agreed with that view, it makes DRM no less distasteful, just "neccessary".
Finally, I have seen the argument that it is impossible to maintain artistic creation in a society without our current lottery of potentially large financial reward; to that, I say Bu11shit.
I don't give a damn about my right to personally evaluate "Fair Use" compared to my right to develop new uses and technologies from emerging standards!
